Here is the Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

Rivermist

Mirrorless or bust.
Apr 27, 2019
72
103
Houston
Crippled again by lack of TC support. Annoying as hell. Really hating Canon's RF lens strategy. The old 70-200 f/2.8L IS II made a great 98-280 f/4L IS and was main reason I sold my 300 f/4L IS. If I wanted little lenses I'd buy m4/3.
So far only the 24-70 f/2.8L IS appeals but not enough to get me to sell my EF version for 30% more cost.
I have never perceived the 70-200 lens as telephoto zooms, my usage has always been portrait for which the focal length spread is ideal (more useful than 85mm or 135mm primes). While it was convent in the EF system to be able to add a 1.4x or 2x extender in a pinch, this was never the prime reason to own a zoom with such a (relatively) short almost 3x factor, when you have competent 70-300 (4x +) or 100-400 (4x) zooms for serious telephoto work. In my EF past, I owned a 70-200 L for portrait work and a 100-400 L for travel / telephoto missions.
 

dcm

It's not the gear.
CR Pro
Apr 18, 2013
860
246
Colorado, USA
The RF 70-200 f/4L could well have a tripod mount similar to the 600mm and 800mm lenses, ie. without the removable ring and foot.
 

SnowMiku

I'm New Here
Oct 4, 2020
22
14
Since I never had L series lenses less than f/2.8 ("Cheap people always pay twice" personal rule), I wonder which one is supposed to be sharper: an f/2.8 at f/4 or a native f/4.
I'm thinking that the f/2.8 will be sharper at F/4. The only way to really know is to read reviews comparing them. If you have never had an L lens less then f/2.8, I think you will be more happy getting the f/2.8 rather then the f/4 unless if you want a lighter lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alex784